ICHRAs allow companies to compensate employees for insurance purchased in individual markets and may help clinical laboratories reduce patient bad debt
Both employees and their employers are frustrated with current options for health coverage. Now, a recent report from the HRA Council suggests that more employers are turning to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) as an alternative to traditional group insurance coverage to cope with the increasing cost of employee health benefits. This will be of interest to clinical laboratories that must collect copays/deductibles from patients. Health insurance arrangements that make it easier for patients to pay help labs reduce patient bad debt.
According to its website, HRA Council is “dedicated to improving and expanding health coverage options for millions of workers by giving employers better ways to offer workers health insurance.”
The non-partisan advocacy organization, which consists of insurers, brokers, employers, and other stakeholders, estimates that only 500,000 workers are currently covered by these plans nationwide. That number of workers represents a 29% increase since 2023, with most of the growth coming from large employers.
Under HRA arrangements, employers provide non-taxed financial assistance to workers who then obtain coverage for themselves and/or their families in the insurance marketplace.
One type of plan, known as the Qualified Small Employer HRA (QSEHRA), was established as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, which Congress passed in 2016. QSEHRAs, however, are available only to businesses with 50 or fewer full-time (or equivalent) employees. Most of the recent growth has come from Individual Coverage HRAs (ICHRA), established under regulations issued by the Trump Administration in 2019.
In contrast to QSEHRAs, ICHRA plans are available to companies of any size, HRA Council notes.
“It’s a way to offer coverage to more diverse employee groups than ever before and set a budget that controls costs for the companies,” HRA Council Executive Director Robin Paoli told KFF Health News.
“ICHRAs are bringing a fresh new approach for employers who need a new or different solution to enable providing health benefits to their employees,” said Andrew Reeves (above), senior vice president and general manager, Gravie ICHRA, in the HRA Council report. Gravie is one of the health benefits companies allied with HRA Council. “Through the defined contribution approach that ICHRA brings, employers are now able to set their budget and enable employees to make their own individual decisions on the coverage they need for themselves and their families. ICHRAs are delivering an approach to employee benefits that is both stable yet at the same time flexible for the individual,” he added. These types of alternatives to traditional employer-sponsored health plans may also help clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups reduce patient bad debt. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
How ICHRA Plans Work
As explained by HRA Council, “an ICHRA allows the employer to allocate to each employee a specific amount of money to spend on ACA [Affordable Care Act]-compliant individual health insurance plans. Employees then purchase their own plans, and the employer reimburses them up to the allocated amount.”
The rule allows employers to define up to 11 classes of workers and offer different benefit packages to each. These benefits can be based on characteristics such as:
geography,
whether the worker is employed full-time, part-time, or seasonally,
whether the worker is paid a salary or hourly wage, and
Employers can choose to offer ICHRAs to some classes and traditional group plans to others. Within each class of employee, employers also can vary compensation based on age—up to a 3-to-1 ratio—since older workers will generally pay higher premiums than younger ones.
For example, the HRA Council explains, “if an employer offers its 26-year-old employee $300 per month, it could only offer the oldest employee up to $900 per month.”
However, some consumer advocates have pointed to potential downsides of these plans, KFF Health News reported.
The rule, they concede, provides guardrails to prevent companies from moving only their sicker employees—the ones most costly to cover—to the individual market. For example, employers must offer the HRAs to entire classes of workers, and the rule prevents them from defining classes that contain only a small number of employees.
However, the authors contend that employers can still target HRAs to classes more likely to be sick while offering group coverage to other classes. In general, they argue, employers with sicker workforces will be most attracted to HRAs. As these workers enter individual insurance markets premiums could rise, particularly “in states that today have individual markets with a relatively low-cost mix of enrollees,” the authors wrote.
Although the rule allows companies to vary compensation based on age, older workers will still pay more for insurance unless the contribution covers the entire cost of the premium. This would likely make the HRAs “less attractive to employers by making it harder for employers to avoid leaving some workers worse off,” the authors noted.
The Brookings authors also observed that workers who accept the contributions are ineligible for premium tax credits enabled by the Affordable Care Act.
KFF Health News noted other potential downsides as well. “Plans sold on the individual market often have smaller provider networks and higher deductibles than employer-sponsored coverage. Premiums are often higher than for comparable group coverage.”
In addition, ICHRAs can create administrative headaches that have prompted some employers to return to group plans. “Instead of a company paying one group health plan premium, dozens of individual health insurers may need to be paid,” KFF Health News reported. “And employees who’ve never shopped for a plan before need help figuring out what coverage works for them and signing up.”
One Employer’s Example
KFF Health News highlighted one organization that appears to be happy with its newly adopted ICHRA: Lycoming College in Williamsport, Penn. The school, which provides health benefits for 400 faculty, staff, and family members, saved $1.4 million in healthcare costs in the first year after implementing the plan. “Employees saved an average of $1,200 each in premiums,” KFF noted.
Prior to the transition, one employee with a family of five paid $411 per month for a plan that had a $5,600 annual deductible. Under the ICHRA, he pays $790 per month with no deductible.
“It’s nice to have the choice to balance the high deductible versus the higher premium,” he told KFF Health News. Before, “it was tough to budget for that deductible.”
Which is where the benefit to clinical laboratories comes back in. Making it easier and affordable for patients to pay their co-pays and deductibles also means more patients showing up at labs for doctor ordered tests and blood draws.
This is important for clinical laboratory leaders to watch, because medical labs often interface with hospital EHRs to exchange vital patient data, a key component of complying with Medicare’s EHR incentive programs. If claims of interoperability are shown to be false, could labs engaged with those hospital systems under scrutiny be drawn into the DOJ’s investigations?
Violating the False Claims Act
In May, Coffey Health System (CHS), which includes Coffey County Hospital, a 25-bed critical access hospital located in Burlington, Kan., agreed to pay the US government a total of $250,000 to settle a claim that it violated the False Claims Act.
CHS’ former CIO filed the qui tam (aka, whistleblower) lawsuit, which allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in monetary recovery. He alleged that CHS provided false information to the government about being in compliance with security standards to receive incentive payments under the EHR Incentive Program.
According to a DOJ press release, “the United States alleged that Coffey Health System falsely attested that it conducted and/or reviewed security risk analyses in accordance with requirements under a federal incentive program for the reporting periods of 2012 and 2013. The government contended that the hospital submitted false claims to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs pursuant the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.”
“Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries expect that providers ensure the accuracy and security of their electronic health records,” said Stephen McAllister (above), United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, in the DOJ press release. “This office remains committed to protecting the federal health programs and to hold accountable those whose conduct results in improper payments.” (Photo copyright: US Department of Justice.)
The Recovery Act allocated $25 billion to incentivize healthcare professionals and facilities to adopt and demonstrate meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records by January 1, 2014. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the incentive funds when providers attested to accomplishing specific goals set by the program.
The website of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), HealthIt.gov, defines “meaningful use” as the use of digital medical and health records to:
Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reduce
health disparities;
Engage patients and their families;
Improve care coordination and population and
public health; and
Maintain privacy and security of patient health
information.
The purpose of the HITECH Act was to address privacy and security concerns linked to electronic storage and transference of protected health information (PHI). HITECH encourages healthcare organizations to update their health records and record systems, and it offers financial incentives to institutions that are in compliance with the requirements of the program.
When eligible professionals or eligible hospitals attest to being in compliance with Medicare’s EHR incentive program requirements, they can file claims for federal funds, which are paid and audited by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through Medicare and Medicaid.
Institutions receiving funds must demonstrate meaningful use
of EHR records or risk potential penalties, including the delay or cancellation
of future payments and full reimbursement of payments already received. In
addition, false statements submitted in filed documents are subject to criminal
laws and civil penalties at both the state and federal levels.
EHR Developers Under Scrutiny by DOJ
EHR vendors also have been investigated and ordered to make
restitutions by the DOJ.
In February, Greenway Health, a Tampa-based EHR developer, agree to pay $57.25 million to resolve allegations related to the False Claims Act. In this case, the government contended that Greenway obtained certification for its “Prime Suite” EHR even though the technology did not meet the requirements for meaningful use.
And EHR vendor eClinicalWorks paid the government $155 million to settle allegations under the False Claims Act. The government maintained that eClinicalWorks misrepresented the capabilities of their software and provided $392,000 in kickbacks to customers who promoted its product.
Legal cases such as these demonstrate that the DOJ will
pursue both vendors and healthcare organizations that misrepresent their
products or falsely attest to interoperability under the terms laid out by
Medicare’s EHR Incentive Program.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology groups should carefully
study these cases. This knowledge may be helpful when they are asked to create
and maintain interfaces to exchange patient data with client EHRs.
According to Bloomberg, thousands of people—some earning more than $125,000 a year—are now foregoing health insurance altogether and instead choosing concierge medicine because it costs less.
“We’re not poor people, but we can’t afford health insurance,” Mimi Owens, a resident of Harahan, La., told Bloomberg.
Priced Out of the Market
Bloomberg also reported on a Marion, N. C., family whose monthly insurance premium of $1,691 in 2017—triple their house mortgage payment—was increasing to $1,813 in 2018. The couple, who had no children and an income of $127,000 from a small IT business plus a physical therapy job, had a $5,000 deductible. However, their total annual insurance investment after premiums was about $30,000, and that was before any healthcare claims.
They decided, instead, to purchase care through a membership in a physician practice.
“Self-employed people are being priced out of the market,” Donna Harper, an insurance agent in Crystal Lake, Ill., told Fierce Healthcare. The self-employed business owner reportedly had to cancel her Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) plan because the premiums totaled $11,000 annually with a $6,000 per year deductible.
“I haven’t been in the hospital for 40 years, so I’m going to roll the dice,” she stated.
Increasingly, this is the choice many people with higher incomes are making and it is impacting both the healthcare and health plan industries.
Huge Deductibles, Skyrocketing Premiums!
Regardless of whether people purchase their health coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Exchanges or their employers, deductibles can be as high as $5,000/year for individuals and $10,000/year for family coverage, or more.
And, in 2017, annual premiums for workers averaged $18,764, a Kaiser Employer Survey reported.
According to CNN Money, ACA premiums for silver plans in 2018 were 37% higher than the previous year, and the average increase for all health exchange plans since 2017 was 24% nationwide.
And, while financial assistance is available, people making more than 400% over the Federal Poverty Level will not qualify for premium subsidies from the ACA, according to HealthCare.gov.
Lots of “Essential” Services, But Narrow Networks
Critics of the ACA point out that one of the reasons Health Exchange plans are so expensive is because every plan is required to have “essential health benefits” that many enrollees to not need or want. For example, a childless couple in their 50s has to pay for an ACA plan that includes services such as maternity, newborn, and pediatric care.
Another cause for sky rocketing costs are the ACA’s limited number of health plans in many regions. In fact, according to Bloomberg, half of the counties in the US—which together cover 30% of all Americans—have just one insurance company available to the Health Exchange customers.
Uninsured Rate Edges Up in 2017
So, it may come as no surprise that after declining over recent years, the uninsured rate noted at 2017 year-end actually increased by 1.3%, which translates to 3.2-million Americans, a Gallup and Sharecare analysis found (see image below).
That report attributes the uptick in the uninsured population, the largest since ACA’s start, to:
Health insurance companies pulling out of the ACA exchanges;
Costs for remaining insurance plans too high for consumers to bear; and,
Those Americans who earn too much for federal subsidies opting to go without health insurance.
Concierge Care Instead of Health Insurance
Many people do not have health insurance, but that does not mean they are without healthcare. For example, the N.C. couple named in the Bloomberg article decided to pay $198 a month (instead of the $1,813 annual premium) for private membership (AKA, concierge care) in a doctor’s office practice. The fee gives them unlimited office visits, discounts on prescription drugs, and lab tests.
And HealthLeaders Media noted that about 34% of medical practices surveyed indicated that within three years they may add a membership-based payment model.
Dr. James Mumper, MD (left), founder and chief medical officer of PartnerMD, a concierge care practice in Richmond, Va., treats Howard Cobb (right), who has been Mumper’s patient for 14 years. (Photo copyright: Richmond Magazine/Jay Paul.)
For the doctor’s part, concierge medicine has appeal. Physician want to spend more time with their patients and have fewer patients, noted the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“So much of being a good primary care physician is listening and having time to listen,” stated Jim Mumper, MD, Chief Medical Officer, PartnerMD, a concierge medical practice he helped start in Richmond, Va. “This model allows the physicians to do the things that cause them to want to go to medical school and do all the training and all the sleepless nights—to feel at the end of the day that they’ve really helped a lot of people.”
Clearly, the healthcare and health insurance industries are under enormous pressure to address rising costs and evolve to better business models. Clinical laboratories are necessarily along for that ride, and in many ways, must be ready to react quickly to changes coming from both marketplaces.
Though ACA reforms may have slowed healthcare spending, rapidly increasing deductibles and cost sharing requirements have many experts questioning if patients can afford care at all, despite the increased availability of insurance coverage
Much of the debate surrounding efforts to replace and repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has centered on premiums as a central facet of out-of-pocket spending. However, new data from a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey reveals that premiums are only one factor affecting consumers’ ability to pay healthcare bills. High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are another culprit. This directly impacts clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that find revenues down as more American’s avoid costs by delaying or opting out of testing and treatments.
The KFF report highlights both the complexity of managing healthcare costs and how the current focus on premium prices might miss other important considerations that make healthcare inaccessible to many Americans.
High Deductibles and Consumers’ Lack of Savings
An increasing number of insurance plans now include high deductibles—particularly in the individual markets, though employer-based insurance plans are experiencing steady increases as well.
This leaves consumers facing larger bills and making tough decisions about whether their healthcare is affordable—even with insurance.
When healthcare consumers cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of healthcare, they are less likely to schedule wellness visits, adhere to treatments, or follow through on physician-ordered clinical laboratory tests they don’t consider essential to their well-being or simply cannot afford.
Even when they follow protocols and recommendations, that does not mean patients will be able to pay medical laboratories for tests performed, or anatomic pathology groups for specialized services, when the bill comes due.
The Ever-Growing Deductible Dilemma
In its 2017 study, “Do Health Plan Enrollees have Enough Money to Pay Cost Sharing?,” the KFF compares median data on liquid assets from 6,254 single and multi-person households—spanning a range of incomes and age brackets—to the average cost of both standard employer-based insurance and individual market insurance deductibles.
They further note that their data modeling and estimates present a “conservative estimate,” because chronic conditions might cause an extended period of out-of-pocket spending, and that median assets might not be available at a single time or throughout the year.
Concerning a previous 2016 KFF study on high-deductible insurance plans, the authors noted in a press release, “In 2016, 83% of covered workers face a deductible for single coverage, which averages $1,478. That’s up $159 or 12% from 2015, and $486 or 49% since 2011. The average deductible for workers who face one is higher for workers in small firms (three to 199 employers) than in large firms ($2,069 vs. $1,238).”
In the press release following KFF’s 2016 survey, Drew Altman, CEO (above), Kaiser Family Foundation, noted, “We’re seeing premiums rising at historically slow rates, which helps workers and employers alike, but it’s made possible in part by the more rapid rise in the deductibles workers must pay.” (Image copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
In their latest look at deductibles and out-of-pocket spending, the KFF study authors note, “About half (53%) of single-person non-elderly households could pay the $2,000 from their liquid assets towards cost sharing, and only 37% could pay $6,000, which … was less than the maximum out-of-pocket limit for single coverage in 2016. For multi-person families, 47% could pay $4,000 from their liquid assets for cost sharing, while only 35% could pay $12,000.”
This sets the stage for the grim picture now facing many Americans. Despite increased access to medical insurance, being able to use the insurance to obtain care can be a struggle for a sizeable part of the lower to middle class population.
Creating a More Affordable Future for Healthcare
Data from the Q1 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that growth in high-deductible plans might skew these numbers further still. They found that the number of persons under the age of 65 enrolled in HDHPs increased from 25.3% in 2010 to 40.0% in the first quarter of 2016 despite uninsured rates dropping from 22.3% to 11.9% over the same period.
In the 2017 study, KFF outlines the complexity of the issue: “There are significant differences across the income spectrum … For example, 63% of multi-person households with incomes of 400% of poverty or more could pay $12,000 from liquid assets for cost sharing, compared with only 18% of households with incomes between 150% and 400% of poverty, and 4% of households with incomes below 150% of poverty.”
While there are no simple answers to address today’s increasing deductibles, KFF emphasizes the importance of looking at the bigger picture.
“Much of the discussion around affordability has centered on premium costs. A broader notion of affordability will have to focus on the ability of families,” they note. “To adequately address the issue of affordability of health insurance, reform proposals should be evaluated on the affordability of out-of-pocket costs, especially for low and moderate-income families, and be sensitive to the financial impacts that high cost sharing will have on financial wellbeing.”
In the meantime, lack of access to preventative care and regular checkups can increase long-term healthcare costs and health risks, creating a spiral of financial concerns for patients as well as the healthcare professionals and the clinical laboratories serving them.
Medical laboratories today struggle to submit clean claims and be promptly and adequately reimbursed as health insurers institute burdensome requirements and audit more labs
Across the nation, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups of all sizes struggle to get payment for lab test claims. Veteran lab executives say they cannot remember any time in the past when medical laboratories were challenged on the front-end with getting lab test claims paid while also dealing on the back-end with ever-tougher audits and unprecedented recoupment demands.
These issues center upon the new policies adopted by the Medicare program and private health insurers that make it more difficult for many clinical laboratories to be in-network providers, to obtain favorable coverage guidelines for their tests, and to have the documentation requested when auditors show up to inspect lab test claims. This is true whether the audit is conducted by a Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) or a team from a private health insurer.
Source of Financial Pressure on Medical Laboratories in US
Another source of financial pressure on medical laboratories in the United States today is the ongoing increase in the number of patients who have high-deductible health plans—whether from their employer or from the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace (AKA, health exchanges). The individual and family annual deductibles for these plans typically start at around $5,000 and go to $10,000 or more. Many labs are experiencing big increases in patient bad debt because they don’t have the capability to collect payment from patients when they show up in patient service centers (PSCs) to provide specimens.
Some of these developments make it timely to ask the question: Is it a trend for payers to gang up on clinical laboratories and pathology groups and make it tougher for them to be paid for the lab tests they perform? Multiple factors can be identified to support this thesis.
“Is it a coincidence that, in recent years, so many payers are initiating numerous requirements that add complexity to how labs submit claims for lab tests and how they get paid?” asked Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC. Faherty was formerly Executive Vice President, Administration, with BioReference Laboratories, Inc. “I can track four distinct developments that, collectively, mean that fewer lab claims get paid, expose clinical laboratories to extremely rigorous audits with larger recoupment demands, and heighten the risk of fraud and abuse allegations due to use of contract or third-party sales and marketing representatives who represent independent medical lab companies.”
Faherty described the first of his four developments as prior-authorization requirements for molecular and genetic tests. “Health insurers are reacting to the explosion in molecular and genetic testing—both in the number of unique assays that a doctor can order and the volume of orders for these often-expensive tests—by establishing stringent prior-authorization requirements,” he noted.
More Prior-Authorization Requirements for Molecular, Genetic Tests
“At the moment, many clinical lab companies and pathology groups are attempting to understand the prior-authorization programs established by Anthem (which became effective on July 1) and UnitedHealthcare (which became effective on November 1),” explained Faherty. “Just these two prior-authorization programs now cover as many as 80 million beneficiaries. There are plenty of complaints from physicians and lab companies because the systems payers require them to use are not well-designed and quite time-consuming.
“One consequence is that many lab executives complain that they are not getting paid for genetic tests because their client physicians are unable to get the necessary prior authorization—yet the lab decides to perform the test to support good patient care even though it knows it won’t be paid.”
Richard Faherty (left), CEO, RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., will moderate this critical webinar. Joining him will be Rina Wolf (center), Vice President, Commercialization Strategies, Consulting and Industry Affairs, XIFIN, Inc., and Karen S. Lovitch (right), JD, Practice Leader, Health Law Practice, Mintz Levin, PC, Washington, DC. The webinar takes place Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 2 p.m. EST; 1 p.m. CST; 12 p.m. MST; 11 a.m. PST. Click here to register. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Payers Checking on How Clinical Laboratories Bill, Collect from Patients
Faherty’s second trend involves how medical lab companies are billing and collecting the amounts due from patients. “Most payers now pay close attention to how clinical laboratories bill patients for co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket amounts that are required by the patients’ health plans,” he commented. “Labs struggle with this for two reasons.
“One reason is the fact that tens of millions of Americans currently have high-deductible health insurance plans,” said Faherty. “In these cases, medical laboratories often must collect 100% of the cost of lab testing directly from the patients. The second reason is the failure of many independent lab companies to properly and diligently balance-bill their patients. This puts these labs at risk of multiple fraud and abuse issues.”
Many Medical Lab Companies Undergoing More Rigorous Audits by Payers
Faherty considers trend number three to be payers’ expanding use of rigorous audits of lab test claims. “In the past, it was relatively uncommon for a clinical lab company or pathology group to undergo audits of their lab test claims,” he observed. “That has changed in a dramatic way. Today, the Medicare program has increased the number of private auditors that visit labs to inspect lab test claims. At the same time, private health insurers are ramping up the number and intensity of the audits they conduct of lab test claims and substantially increasing their demands for recoupment without audit.
“One consequence of these audits is that medical laboratories are being hit with substantial claims for recoupment,” noted Faherty. “I am aware of multiple genetic testing companies that have been hit with a Medicare recoupment amount equal to two or three years of the lab’s annual revenue. Some have filed bankruptcy because the appeals process can take three to four years.”
Are Contract Lab Sales Reps More Likely to Offer Physicians Inducements?
Faherty’s fourth significant trend involves the greater use of independent contractors that handle lab test sales and marketing for clinical lab companies. “This trend affects both labs that use third-party lab sales reps and labs that don’t,” he said. “Labs that use contract sales and marketing representatives do not have direct control over the sales practices of these contractors. There is ample evidence that some independent lab sales contractors are willing to pay inducements to physicians in exchange for their lab test referrals.
“This is a problem in two dimensions,” noted Faherty. “On one hand, clinical lab companies that use third-party sales contractors don’t have full control over the marketing practices of these sales representatives. Yet, if federal and state prosecutors can show violations of anti-kickback and self-referral laws, then the lab company is equally liable. In certain cases, government attorneys have even gone after executives on a personal basis.
“On the other hand, I am hearing lab executives complain now that a substantial number of office-based physicians are so used to various forms of inducement offered by third-party sales representatives that the lab’s in-house sales force cannot convince those physicians to use their lab company without a comparable inducement. If true, this is a fundamental shift in the competitive market for lab testing services and it puts labs unwilling to pay similar inducements to physicians at a disadvantage.”
These four trends describe the challenges faced by every clinical laboratory, hospital laboratory outreach program, and pathology group when attempting to provide lab testing services to office-based physicians in a fully-compliant manner and be paid adequately and on time by health insurers.
Why Some Labs Continue to Be Successful and What They Can Teach You
These four trends may also explain why many medical lab companies are dealing with falling revenue and encountering financial difficulty. However, there continue to be independent lab companies that have consistent success with their coding, billing, and collections effort. These labs put extra effort into aligning their business practices with the requirements of the Medicare program and private health insurers.
Three esteemed experts in the field will provide you with the inside scoop on the best responses and actions your clinical lab and pathology group can take to address these major changes and unwelcome developments. Presenting will be:
· Moderating will be Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
Special Webinar with Insights on How Your Lab Can Collect the Money It’s Due
To register for the webinar and see details about the topics to be discussed, use this link (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://pathologywebinars.com/how-to-prepare-your-lab-for-2018-essential-insights-into-new-payer-challenges-with-lab-audits-patient-billing-out-of-network-claims-and-heightened-scrutiny-of-lab-sales-practices/).
This is an essential webinar for any pathologist or lab manager wanting to improve collected revenue from lab test claims and to improve lab compliance. During the webinar, any single idea or action your lab can take away could result in increasing collected revenue by tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of dollars. That makes this webinar the smartest investment you can make for your lab’s legal and billing/collection teams.
